An interesting question. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera made it worse. My guess is that people, when trusted, hold themselves to a higher standard. But with a camera present, they're allowed to turn off their own consciences. So people would be ingenious about palming a bagel so the camera wouldn't see, and think that if the camera's not seeing it, they're home free.
http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/melissa.bateson/Bateson_etal_2006...
> We examined the effect of an image of a pair of eyes on contributions to an honesty box used to collect money for drinks in a university coffee room. People paid nearly three times as much for their drinks when eyes were displayed rather than a control image. This finding provides the first evidence from a naturalistic setting of the importance of cues of being watched, and hence reputational concerns, on human cooperative behaviour.
Upvoted because it's interesting, but I don't think it directly addresses my thesis. The cited study is looking at the effect of subliminally suggesting that someone could be watching. I'm wondering about a situation where the subject really is being watched, or is at least made to believe that he is, and in a way that such that his evil behavior can be easily masked.
Specifically, I theorize that if someone else asserts control over a person's moral behavior, then that subject will exercise less self-control, yielding to the authority as necessary.
http://blogimg.goo.ne.jp/user_image/06/11/9f4a169cfc44d712c8...